(1) I jumped on the Tumblr train to ask this question... also sorry this seems like a really convoluted ask…it’s just all of my random thoughts lately about S7 poured into I've was always a very casual viewer of HL until S6, which was a terrible season to become deeply invested in character, plot, writing, fandom, etc. With that said, I’m curious if your thoughts about S7 have changed.
Like Sara, I almost exclusively watch this show for Claire/Carrie and Frannie, so I have tentative hope that the writers this season will provide better writing and direction for Carrie. At the very least, I think it will be entertaining, even at the expense of solid character writing. Honestly, I could do without the quasi-#Resistance /deep state plot line, but the writers really wrote themselves into a hole, so I guess there’s not much else they could have done. I wish so desperately they could something akin to S4 with a season narrative not overtly relevant or connected to red-hot, current-day politics or issues. As has been discussed before here, I have no desire to watch Trump-inspired plot lines right now, especially because I feel like HL writers tend to deliver half-baked, sloppy approximations of ‘hot’ issues like hacking/cyberespionage (S5) and, well, everything in S6. Why can’t AG and co. except that shows this late into their run so rarely retain their au courant-ness and relevancy in the minds of TV and cultural critics?
Oh, girlfriend, season sixwas a HORRIBLE season to become deeply invested in this show. Season six was,let’s face it, pure hot garbage. I feel for you. At least I have the sunny andbrilliant days of earlier seasons to look back on and remind me why I fell inlove with this show to begin with. I obviously complete relate to watching thisshow for Carrie because it’s how I’ve always viewed it, but I’m not sure you’llbe totally satisfied if you’re that deeply invested in Franny. I have zeroconfidence the writers will do that relationship justice–or even want to.
As for your question–whycan’t Gansa accept that shows this late into their run rarely retain theirrelevancy in the minds of TV/cultural critics–here is what I’ve observed:
TVand cultural critics are telling Gansathat the way toremain relevant in their eyes is to write “ripped from the headline”-typestories. To try to mirror reality. To be “prescient.” Almost every singleinterview from the past year or so mentions this aspect of the show.
TheWashington Post interview with Gansa a few weeks ago had not a singlecharacter-focused question. This is what reporters and interviewers are askinghim. I guess I can see why he might believe this is what he should be writingin order to remain relevant seven years in. (And, before you think, well that’s the Washington Post and theirmain business is news, EntertainmentWeekly’s interview with Gansa from December covers the exact same territory.)
Thisis what the great majority of TV and cultural critics are writing about.
Ithink the appetite for news consumption—especially in the age of Trump—is fuelingthis somewhat. Real life feels like a horrible reality show right now, so let’sdramatize that. I’m not excusing Gansa from poor storytelling and poormanagement of the people around him for the last two seasons. This is what I’veobserved in the media and it’s certainly maddening. I’m an advocate for TV andfilm as an escape from the horrors of real life. I’m an advocate for TV andfilm as entertainment first.
The problemin my eyes is not the attempt at relevance or prescience outright. Be relevantand comment on real life all you want. The problem is the attempt at relevanceand prescience at the expense of honest, sound character progression and storytelling. And the way they’ve doubled down on dark and disturbing storytelling, seemingly for the fuck of it. Those are the real problems and despite all our shouting the last 10 months I’m still not sure anyone with power actually gets it.
And that is pretty disheartening, in every way.
